2012 (4) TMI 208 - HC - Indian Laws

Witness against himself - Issue of summons under section 108 - the petitioner has been formally accused of an offence of smuggling Red Sander Wood to Dubai and to other places, along with certain other accused persons - summons were issued to intimate that attendance of the petitioner is necessary to give evidence and to produce documents or things related to the said acts - petitioner contented that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the criminal case, he cannot be compelled to give evidence in connection with the said case - he further stated that as per clause 3 of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, no person, accused of any offense, shall be compelled to be a witness against himself - no compulsion on the part of the petitioner, to produce the documents and other evidence, which would amount to infringement of the right against self-incrimination - Held that - it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be compelled by the respondent to give evidence against himself, as he is an accused person in the alleged smuggling activities - However, the evidence obtained during the process of inquiry which had not been obtained by compulsion, could be made use of in the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner or against other persons

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority and legality of summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
3. Vagueness and arbitrariness of the summons.
4. Protection against self-incrimination.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority and Legality of Summons Issued Under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner argued that the respondent lacked the authority to issue a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, deeming it arbitrary, illegal, and void. The respondent countered, asserting that Section 108 empowers them to summon any person necessary for an enquiry. The court upheld the respondent's authority under Section 108 to summon individuals for evidence or documents, emphasizing that summoned persons are obligated to attend and state the truth.

2. Violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner contended that being compelled to give evidence violated Article 20(3), which protects against self-incrimination. The court noted that this protection applies only if a person is formally accused of an offense and compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence. The court referenced multiple Supreme Court rulings, including SELVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA and M.P.SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. SATISH CHANDRA, to affirm that the right against self-incrimination is vital in criminal proceedings.

3. Vagueness and Arbitrariness of the Summons:
The petitioner claimed the summons were vague and constituted a roving enquiry, which violated principles of natural justice. The court acknowledged that summons under Section 108 should specify the particular act of smuggling and the documents required. However, it found that the respondent's summons, while broad, were within legal bounds as they sought relevant evidence for the investigation.

4. Protection Against Self-Incrimination:
The petitioner argued that as an accused in a criminal case, he could not be compelled to provide evidence against himself. The court clarified that while the respondent could summon the petitioner for documents and evidence, any statements obtained under compulsion could not be used against him due to Article 20(3). The court cited several precedents, including RAMESH CHANDRA MEHTA Vs. THE STATE OF W.B. and UNION OF INDIA Vs. PADAM NARAIN AGGARWAL, to support this view.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondent had the authority to issue the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the petitioner must comply. However, it emphasized that any evidence obtained under compulsion could not be used against the petitioner, safeguarding his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no costs, and the connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 was closed.